MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2169296633 · doi:10.1177/0142723711422629

Children’s acquisition of word order depends on syntactic/semantic role: Evidence from adjective-noun order

2011· article· en· W2169296633 on OpenAlexaff
Elena Nicoladis, Mijke Rhemtulla

Bibliographic record

VenueFirst Language · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicLanguage Development and Disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAdjectiveWord orderLinguisticsVerbNounSentencePsychologyComputer scienceNatural language processingArtificial intelligencePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Based on research on children’s verb production, Usage-Based theorists have argued that children learn grammatical abstractions in the preschool years. The fact that, in English verb clauses, word order determines semantic/syntactic roles leaves open the possibility that children are learning not just syntactic frames, but the relationship between order and semantic/syntactic roles. To clarify the nature of children’s abstract knowledge, we taught novel adjectives to English-speaking children (2 to 4 years), both prenominally and postnominally. Unlike verbs, adjective position in a sentence does not change the semantic/syntactic role of the adjective. Children showed sensitivity to the canonical order, but even four-year-olds frequently used novel adjectives postnominally. We argue that a strong motivation for ordering words grammatically is when order determines semantic/syntactic roles.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.250 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFirst LanguageSame topicLanguage Development and DisordersFrench-language works237,207